Does anyone see anything approaching sense in the Saterbak ruling? And now that nonsense is published. The Yvanova decision identified injury and causation when they said, “a homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity’s hands. No more is required for standing to sue.”
The only difference is the foreclosed upon homeowner’s injury is actual while the homeowner being foreclosed upon, their injury is imminent.

Imminent is good enough good enough for Article 3 standing. I’m surprised that California courts view injury (in this instance) as something that can only be redressed afterwards and don’t allow relief to avoid imminent injury. All the more so in an instance in which it is less effectively addressed after it happens as it can’t usually be undone so even a favourable decision can not adequately redress the injury. That would make for a very inefficient system.